Jochen Schulz wrote:
> I have read statements to that effect several times now but I don't
> really know where the problem lies. I know that mutt is mainly
> unmaintained now and that there are unfixed bugs (like the wrong
> reporting of unread mails per IMAP-mailbox). But are there general
> problems with the code like maintainability, incompatibilities or errors
> in the implementation of the IMAP protocol?
The main problem that I saw is that on delete operations it does
something that is insanely slower than TBird. For example, on TBird I
can mark 25 messages as deleted, hit delete, and within about a second
they are in the trash folder.
In mutt (as of, say, 4 months ago when I last tried) it will copy then
delete message 1... then copy and delete message 2... then copy and
delete message 3... Taking about 1/2 second each. So on a 25 message
operation mutt will take 12 seconds to do what TBird does in no more
than 2. Even worse is that is without network lag as the mutt operation
was carried out on the server itself.
Now extend that to maintaining a high volume list like Debian where one
has 300 or so messages a day. 300 messages is 2.5 minutes of sitting
idle. TBird would complete that oepration in, at most, 4-5 seconds. I
dread to think what it would be like when I go on my monthly Exim user
list purges of 2-3 thousand messages at once.
I don't know what TBird is doing differently than mutt but it is
painfully slow and utterly unusable.
--
Steve Lamb
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
